Thread by @lawfareblog

Our Twitter Space to debrief the #January6thCommitteeHearings starts now!

https://twitter.com/lawfareblog/status/1541860079561052160

.@DavidPriess gets us started with the major points of today.

"Where to begin..." David was initially skeptical about this surprise hearing, but he says "my jaw was on the floor."

@DavidPriess .@DavidPriess is giving a ~numbered list of everything we learned today at the hearing in the hearing.

He's doing it in a numbered list, and he's already up to 9 with no signs of stopping.

@DavidPriess .@rparloff says of the hearing, "it was all highlight reel."

One thing that struck him was the warnings ahead of time---Trump's aides talked about the specific crimes they were worried about, the ones we are talking about today--Like incitement.

@DavidPriess @rparloff Before today's hearing, @ARozenshtein thought Trump would avoid criminal indictment.

Today he thinks Trump can and should be indicted.

Incitement to violence, riot, insurrection.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein .@ARozenshtein can't point to specific evidence from today that changed his mind. Compares it to seeing the duck vs the rabbit.

But yes, now he thinks Trump can and should be indicted. The First Amendment does not cover.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein .@nkorpett talking about Trump's culpability---recommends this piece about the issue by Daniel Richman: lawfareblog.com/actual-knowled…

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett "I don't care if they f-ing have weapons..." (Trump quote)

@rparloff says that the evidence is overwhelming that Trump and his people knew the potential for violence. There were many warnings.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett .@rparloff forgets the metaphor he wants, but he probably meant that Trump was "adding gasoline to the fire" during his speech at the rally.

(Roger said Trump was "lighting the match")

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett "Let them through," "they're my people," "they won't hurt me" + Trump's desire to go to the Capitol.

@ARozenshtein DOES NOT believe in smoking guns. But he says this is huge. "Enough to establish" grounds to indictment Trump.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett (If you are just seeing this, we are in this Space---come with your questions about today's #January6thHearings twitter.com/i/spaces/1OyKA… )

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett .@DavidPriess is our history guy---historians hate saying that something is "unprecedented," because you can almost always find something in the well of the past.

But this? This is different.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett .@DavidPriess:

This is not "what did the president know and when did he know it?"

This is "did the president know the exact number and type of the weapons that people were planning to bring to the Capitol?"

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett .@DavidPriess also thinks this is a new level of shocking testimony before Congress. Beyond "have you no decency sir?"

Qualitatively different level. The testimony demonstrates and attempted coup by an outgoing administration.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett Fellow old man @rparloff also cannot remember anything like these events in American history.

The president lunging for the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent?

@nkorpett agrees it is unprecedented.

@DavidPriess @rparloff @ARozenshtein @nkorpett Discussion of how effectively the Committee is presenting the information. The novel way the content is presented, the multimedia aspect.

.@DavidPriess draws comparison to the Mueller Report, which perhaps hit some peoples' tables with a dull "thunk."